This goes out to Lisa (npub1vn8…rq9e) who asked a fantastic question regarding this crash.
Paraphrased a lot, isn't there a regulation that is supposed to prevent runway overruns and weren't runway safety areas next to populated areas like roads found to be inadequate?
Yes and yes!
First, the existing regulation.
14 CFR Part 139, section 139.309 designates the requirement of a runway safety area. Essentially a buffer zone that the FAA has designated to be around 1000ft long.
While most runways at MIA have an appropriate RSA (I.e runway overrun buffer zone), the incident runway did not. It was likely either grandfathered in or given an exemption without building an EMAS (engineered material arresting system) which is essentially a part at the end of the runway that acts as a sticky trap for planes. EMAS has already saved lives.
The NTSB in the Midway (2005) and Teteboro, New Jersey (2005) overun investigations found that EMAS was required. The EMAS installed at Teterboro then stopped a runway overrun in 2010.
> "Contributing to the severity of the accident was the absence of an engineering materials arresting system, which was needed because of the limited runway safety area beyond the departure end of runway 31C." - NTSB, 2005 Chicago Midway report
The NTSB has made this finding twice at populated airports with the road immediately past the runway end, RSA inadequate, EMAS needed. Both times EMAS was installed only after someone died on the road. Another example of Tombstone Regulation.
EMAS is likely a good idea even with the RSA buffer zone, as the overrun in this case was 2000ft which would go well beyond the 1000ft RSA mandated by the FAA
#FAA #AvGeek #NTSB #ChillyATCAdventures
Chilly :donor: 🛡️ :gayint: :ifin:
npub17c…39jd4
2026-09-07 16:50:16 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…dh4m
Author Public Key
npub17cvzvmxvn6exfnjrff7r0656nj2dys6qndtx4qtfhgl0m73a5vcsk39jd4Seen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2026-09-07 16:50:16 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "2fe95a8733d85de3102610c386e2aa81e866a7ceef8612099f0cf333c79611ca",
"pubkey": "f618266ccc9eb264ce434a7c37ea9a9c94d243409b566a8169ba3efdfa3da331",
"created_at": 1788799816,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"chillyatcadventures"
],
[
"e",
"84b9ab6a1a68e2ae6511602158bdaf140f0d4c8fab4eead295ead14dcf542d56",
"",
"reply",
"f618266ccc9eb264ce434a7c37ea9a9c94d243409b566a8169ba3efdfa3da331"
],
[
"p",
"f618266ccc9eb264ce434a7c37ea9a9c94d243409b566a8169ba3efdfa3da331"
],
[
"t",
"ntsb"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/@chillybot/117230784805913702",
"web"
],
[
"e",
"734b95d777c287cd6b272be59e261a00f97010b92a0ad257cf1d6041cb4451c0",
"",
"root",
"f618266ccc9eb264ce434a7c37ea9a9c94d243409b566a8169ba3efdfa3da331"
],
[
"p",
"64cf48d4d6d422e892c71a78f620e16534db5b7cdf3f88abc2e92d6f5c7fa1cf"
],
[
"t",
"faa"
],
[
"t",
"avgeek"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/users/chillybot/statuses/117230784805913702",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://infosec.exchange/users/chillybot/statuses/117230784805913702",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "This goes out to nostr:npub1vn8534xk6s3w3yk8rfu0vg8pv56dkkmumulc327zaykk7hrl588skzrq9e who asked a fantastic question regarding this crash. \n\nParaphrased a lot, isn't there a regulation that is supposed to prevent runway overruns and weren't runway safety areas next to populated areas like roads found to be inadequate?\n\nYes and yes!\n\nFirst, the existing regulation.\n\n14 CFR Part 139, section 139.309 designates the requirement of a runway safety area. Essentially a buffer zone that the FAA has designated to be around 1000ft long. \n\nWhile most runways at MIA have an appropriate RSA (I.e runway overrun buffer zone), the incident runway did not. It was likely either grandfathered in or given an exemption without building an EMAS (engineered material arresting system) which is essentially a part at the end of the runway that acts as a sticky trap for planes. EMAS has already saved lives.\n\nThe NTSB in the Midway (2005) and Teteboro, New Jersey (2005) overun investigations found that EMAS was required. The EMAS installed at Teterboro then stopped a runway overrun in 2010.\n\n\u003e \"Contributing to the severity of the accident was the absence of an engineering materials arresting system, which was needed because of the limited runway safety area beyond the departure end of runway 31C.\" - NTSB, 2005 Chicago Midway report\n\nThe NTSB has made this finding twice at populated airports with the road immediately past the runway end, RSA inadequate, EMAS needed. Both times EMAS was installed only after someone died on the road. Another example of Tombstone Regulation.\n\nEMAS is likely a good idea even with the RSA buffer zone, as the overrun in this case was 2000ft which would go well beyond the 1000ft RSA mandated by the FAA\n\n#FAA #AvGeek #NTSB #ChillyATCAdventures",
"sig": "18bcf0e480bbd286d3c4e2a8cf0b9e2a4383085112a6a1282b00ef371d10c63ea71b6c216cc6a9b0b8f2b4c380065065dae948c7165283c4cb6eb1b72fe45fc9"
}